PD nerf: -1 defense to militias.

Written by Htin, 05.07.2015 at 22:27

Next will be nerf Sky menance and nerf ukraine and nerf IF gw , then boost hw

Written by clovis1122, 05.07.2015 at 22:15

Written by Acquiesce, 05.07.2015 at 22:05

that require micromanagement and defensive play.

Yup, Capstack and Move big stack of infantries from A to B requires intense micromanagement!

Written by Acquiesce, 05.07.2015 at 22:05

(and arguably RA)

Not arguable, sorry. I've already grave screenshots proving that RA is weak against PD, but if it would make you happy then after HTML I can re-make the test...

Stop buttlicking your pitty RA/Blitz friends. The way you play PD doesn't mean we all do -.-.
Not everybody capstacks and moves from A to B. God... stop humiliating yourself.

The real problem is here to pay 90 costs for fking tanks with 9 Att , 6 Deff , 7 Crit ,9 Range , 18 View. It has the same costs as IMP while imp tanks only have 7 Att , 4 Def , 5 Crit , 7 Range , 18 View.

I think any person with an amount of brains can conclude the costs of RA tanks for those amount of stats are outrageous. And then here you are complaining about militia costing such less for 6 deffense? If you nerf anything about the deffense, the strat will lose its meaning and this whole will be played with RA... I thought you made a complain thread where you ask for more strats because is boring, > yet with this nerf you will get the opposite.

How about this, even though RA is a one unit strat that requires less skill than any other strat, and is slightly more overpowered vs the rest of strategies; the world of strategies is the most balanced at this moment. Adding MORE changes to the game would just create another weak strategy and make another one stronger and require further more tweaking. Just leave it how it is, and let the admins finish html5 in peace.

Written by The Tactician, 06.07.2015 at 05:46

Just leave it how it is, and let the admins finish html5 in peace.

I fully approve of this idea.

Written by The Tactician, 06.07.2015 at 05:46

Just leave it how it is, [...]

With all due respect, this is exactly what I think. thanks

Fuck off with nerfing PD AT ALL. You cucks.

The reason it didn't happen is because it got even more people against it.

No support.

Maybe a better nerf would be a range nerf or something else other than reducing the defense. I mean the strategy is called perfect DEFENSE. So you should get amazing defense. But maybe reduce the attack even more or the range.

Written by Cthulhu, 06.07.2015 at 10:25

The reason it didn't happen is because it got even more people against it.

No support.

it's not about majority, it's about fairness
the main reason of blitz nerf was to balance it compared to other strats, only 17 ppl were up for blitz nerf and 983 against it...
this didn't happen becuz 99% high ranks are too attached to pd, but it's not fair it needs to be nerfed so aw becomes more balanced

Written by Goblin, 06.07.2015 at 10:44

Written by Guest, 06.07.2015 at 10:41

the main reason of blitz nerf was to balance it compared to other strats, only 17 ppl were up for blitz nerf and 983 against it...

Where the hell did you get this numbers from xD

Written by Guest, 06.07.2015 at 10:41

this didn't happen becuz 99% high ranks are too attached to pd, but it's not fair it needs to be nerfed so aw becomes more balanced

But never mind, because we on the same side now

numbers weren't accurate it's 9983 actually since every r8- plays blitz 24/7 include all of rp "fags" xD

Written by Guest, 06.07.2015 at 10:48

numbers weren't accurate it's 9983 actually since every r8- plays blitz 24/7 include all of rp "fags" xD

Well that was kind of a pointer... when so many people chose to play only one strategy over 12 others, something is wrong.

Written by Goblin, 06.07.2015 at 10:53

Written by Guest, 06.07.2015 at 10:48

numbers weren't accurate it's 9983 actually since every r8- plays blitz 24/7 include all of rp "fags" xD

Well that was kind of a pointer... when so many people chose to play only one strategy over 12 others, something is wrong.

exactly and that's a pointer about pd too, why so many high ranks choose to play pd over 12 others ? same reason why blitz got nerfed.

How about -1 def for the militias, but add +1 def vs tanks? So it would be:
4 defense normally
5 defense in cities or defense lines
BUT still 6 defense vs tanks so people stop complaining about RA will be overpowered compared to militia blahblahblah

Written by jimmynow, 06.07.2015 at 10:39

Maybe a better nerf would be a range nerf or something else other than reducing the defense. I mean the strategy is called perfect DEFENSE. So you should get amazing defense. But maybe reduce the attack even more or the range.

Fully support this

Leave pd alone, no sup

Written by clovis1122, 05.07.2015 at 19:52

Written by b0nker2, 05.07.2015 at 16:55

and new strategy changes it might not be needed

Written by International, 05.07.2015 at 19:10

I would support this, but 90 cost tanks.

You're only comparing PD with RA. Try, for example, to compare it with another strategy.

Clovis why you trying to school me on my own idea xa. It was needed, probably still is.

Written by clovis1122, 05.07.2015 at 22:15

Not arguable, sorry. I've already grave screenshots proving that RA is weak against PD, but if it would make you happy then after HTML I can re-make the test...

what the 1 tank vs 1 pd inf screenshots? These prove ra is weak vs pd do they? This is a prime example of clovis' useless troll posts. He knows damn well what happens in larger battles but posts nonsense like this in order to be contrarian. This is why i dismiss clovis. When do you ever kill a pd player by wiping out their units 1 at a time.



larger battles, i repeated the 40 vs 40 battle twice, 12 tanks remained in the other. Theres some variance but the tanks always win. In the 10 vs 10 battle i had the tanks lose once in 7 tests.



edit: more 20 vs 20 and 30 vs 30 tests



i should add that mos marines fare even better(no inf defense bonus and lucky upgrade) SM bombers fare the same as the tanks roughly(no lucky upgrade but inf have no defense bonus. Losses decrease the more you send so outstack outstack outstack. Your offensive units are much faster so you can wipe pd stacks faster then they can reinforce them.

Written by Guest, 06.07.2015 at 10:41

it's not about majority, it's about fairness
the main reason of blitz nerf was to balance it compared to other strats, only 17 ppl were up for blitz nerf and 983 against it...
this didn't happen becuz 99% high ranks are too attached to pd, but it's not fair it needs to be nerfed so aw becomes more balanced

You're incorrigible.

Please leave the strat changes to those who know what theyre talking about and who actually bother their asses to do tests and argue their position without tonnes of fallacies.

Written by Permamuted, 06.07.2015 at 14:08

Written by clovis1122, 05.07.2015 at 22:15

Not arguable, sorry. I've already grave screenshots proving that RA is weak against PD, but if it would make you happy then after HTML I can re-make the test...

what the 1 tank vs 1 pd inf screenshots? These prove ra is weak vs pd do they? This is a prime example of clovis' useless troll posts. He knows damn well what happens in larger battles but posts nonsense like this in order to be contrarian. This is why i dismiss clovis. When do you ever kill a pd player by wiping out their units 1 at a time.



larger battles, i repeated the 40 vs 40 battle twice, 12 tanks remained in the other. Theres some variance but the tanks always win. In the 10 vs 10 battle i had the tanks lose once in 7 tests.



edit: more 20 vs 20 and 30 vs 30 tests



i should add that mos marines fare even better(no inf defense bonus and lucky upgrade) SM bombers fare the same as the tanks roughly(no lucky upgrade but inf have no defense bonus. Losses decrease the more you send so outstack outstack outstack. Your offensive units are much faster so you can wipe pd stacks faster then they can reinforce them.

Written by Guest, 06.07.2015 at 10:41

it's not about majority, it's about fairness
the main reason of blitz nerf was to balance it compared to other strats, only 17 ppl were up for blitz nerf and 983 against it...
this didn't happen becuz 99% high ranks are too attached to pd, but it's not fair it needs to be nerfed so aw becomes more balanced

You're incorrigible.

Please leave the strat changes to those who know what theyre talking about and who actually bother their asses to do tests and argue their position without tonnes of fallacies.

hey, i did tests with croat and pavle when u nerfed blitz, so plz stop being rude.
fact is shown man on cw, and keep ur so called "ra" tests, i believe that it's not ra but if.

Written by Guest, 06.07.2015 at 14:25

hey, i did tests with croat and pavle when u nerfed blitz, so plz stop being rude.
fact is shown man on cw, and keep ur so called "ra" tests, i believe that it's not ra but if.

oh my... that r4 account is skendytwin, a non prem... IF tanks you say eh? You really think so little of me.

Why dont you try repeating them to see for yourself before calling me a liar. All this goes to show me is that you really have no idea what you are talking about.

edit: Wait screw that i still have the game open on internet explorer

Written by Permamuted, 06.07.2015 at 14:08

I fail to see a problem there, tanks have higher attack than inf have defense, it should take at least two inf to kill a tank

Written by Permamuted, 06.07.2015 at 14:45

Written by Guest, 06.07.2015 at 14:25

hey, i did tests with croat and pavle when u nerfed blitz, so plz stop being rude.
fact is shown man on cw, and keep ur so called "ra" tests, i believe that it's not ra but if.

oh my... that r4 account is skendytwin, a non prem... IF tanks you say eh? You really think so little of me.

Why dont you try repeating them to see for yourself before calling me a liar. All this goes to show me is that you really have no idea what you are talking about.

edit: Wait screw that i still have the game open on internet explorer

i saw u made those tests with ra tanks like 2 weeks ago in another thread, and you still have that internet explorer opened ? 10/10
i am not calling u liar, so plz...

Written by Viruslegion, 06.07.2015 at 14:50

Written by Permamuted, 06.07.2015 at 14:08

I fail to see a problem there, tanks have higher attack than inf have defense, it should take at least two inf to kill a tank

These are pd inf, ra tanks have 9 attack, pd inf have 10 defense(vs tanks in city). So now there is doubt that im pd? For the love of god, repeat the tests yourselves.

Written by Guest, 06.07.2015 at 14:53

i saw u made those tests with ra tanks like 2 weeks ago in another thread, and you still have that internet explorer opened ? 10/10
i am not calling u liar, so plz...

i redid the tests literally 20 mins ago after i read clovis post. I've had enough of this. Unless these threads gain any admin attention i am not wasting any more time on them. Ive made my position clear. You're casting doubt on the results of my tests without doing any yourself because it suits your own agenda. It is laziness and it is disrespectful. I have never attempted to deceive when i have argued for strat changes in the past, i simply put all the info i have on the table and see what others think. It is not my job to educate you on the atwar mechanics.

Written by Permamuted, 06.07.2015 at 15:04

Written by Guest, 06.07.2015 at 14:53

i saw u made those tests with ra tanks like 2 weeks ago in another thread, and you still have that internet explorer opened ? 10/10
i am not calling u liar, so plz...

i redid the tests literally 20 mins ago after i read clovis post. I've had enough of this. Unless these threads gain any admin attention i am not wasting any more time on them. Ive made my position clear. You're casting doubt on the results of my tests without doing any yourself because it suits your own agenda. It is laziness and it is disrespectful. I have never attempted to deceive when i have argued for strat changes in the past, i simply put all the info i have on the table and see what others think. It is not my job to educate you on the atwar mechanics.

stop being sarcastic i feel ashamed.
tanks have 9 attack cost=90, inf have 10 defence cost=50
militia cost fucking nothing, only 20 and defence is 20, ra inf defence is 5 and costs 80... 4 times cheaper and stronger pd needs to nerf either inf or mili it's pretty hilarious to see you defending pd like it's balanced when you care so much about aw...

Its the same thing over and over again, blitz fags crying about pd being op, even when they got blitz boosted and ra boosted in order to beat it, now they even want to nerf pd. So if u nerf it, with what should we defend, blitz? Pd is as fine as it, perfect. If u nerf ra will become unbeatable, ra narbs will just get encouraged to play it more and more, since there will be no strat that could defend against it, and almost none that could counter it in attack.

Cry more blitz fags
Why Eagle,mauzer,lao,acq-,zone and other good players arent for nerfing?cuz they know to play.

Written by Acquiesce, 05.07.2015 at 22:05

My god will you people never be happy? You got your Blitz and RA boosts now you want to nerf PD. I wonder will people say next that GW and IF need to be nerfed? It's like the plan is boost all the offensive rushy expansion stealing strats and nerf all the strats that require micromanagement and defensive play. Just let the strategies be. Believe it or not save LB and HW (and arguably RA) the strats are finally well balanced.

IF MILITIA SHOULD GET 2 MOVEMENT THEN GG...sry for caps

Written by clovis1122, 05.07.2015 at 21:57

I've bough this back after I saw Croat's thread. It is a very simply proposal and I don't really see why it shouldn't happen. As I said, PD is all-around strategy so it basically works well everywhere, probably not against an strategy on his own niche, of course. Just want to say that my comparison is purely based on the unit's stats and usage.

So many useless words to say nothing, maybe this is why no one reads your long ass threads.

Written by clovis1122, 05.07.2015 at 21:57

Your example of PD/MoS is relative. The first time I even though about PD as an strategy was when I was rank 6. I got defeat by PD europe. Somehow, he managed to get 203 units going on, and by the time I get the 203 marines he already have another hundreds of infantries to back himself. His main unit can also form walls and he did had a nest of them so I could do nothing but go straight up. To sum up, we see this with different eyes.

relative? as lao already said MoS can rip through PD infs, have you even played on world game. your example is quite absurd also, it's obvious that if your opponent has units and you don't you probably won't win.

Written by clovis1122, 05.07.2015 at 21:57

Actually, if rally point was implemented I would not play anything but PD, everywhere, anywhere. 9 def for 50 cost is strong, specially when you have THE MONEY to cover your range weaken.

rally point? is this even AW we're discussing. 9 def for 50 cost is the strategy, the same as 8 attk and 17 range for 130 cost is SM.

Written by clovis1122, 05.07.2015 at 21:57

Returning to militias, we cannot ignore the fact that the militias are more or less useful depending of the strategy. So yes, all the strategies get militias. Where is your point? PD also get militias, but not weak blitz militias, not unmovable IF militias, not nerfed <Insert strategy here> militias, but PD militias. As I stated at the start they can match GW militias.

Finally we actually returned to the whole point of this topic. My whole point on the militia thing was that all strategies get free militia when expanding, which you have seemed to have embraced; I'm glad you agree.
I also find it laughable that you think in a 1 dimensional way; blitz militias used for easy, cheap/free, expansion (which have the same range as IF Inf WITH the upgrade). Unmovable IF militias but strong for cheap defense, you know 2 militia is better than 1 inf.

Alright, what if we do say they can match GW militias. Is 7 attk and unseen units for 70 cost TOO MUCH? should we nerf GW? No, this is what the strategy contains.

Anyways it looks like there's not much support for this from the sane people and changing it would be redundant; we've already tweaked other strategies to fit for PD and I think that is the best way to go rather than nerf PD and tweak every other <insert swear here> strategy.

Thanks everybody for the inputs.

From the 15-17 comments against the Nerf, Stryko was the only one who even argued about the PD militias. There were some few players who went further, and proposed another solution. In overall, however, the rest of players who are against the nerf either posted "No support" or used the thread as an excuse to unleash their hate on the recent RA boost. I feel that my post was wronged.

This won't happen, at least for now, as there is a considerable opposition toward it. Being said, this thread had served his purpose.

If u guys wanna nerf anything, don't do it with attack or defense. It's too powerful nerf for PD.

Change the crits.

I'm not fully against PD nerf. But -1 is really too big one.